Wrestle with Pshat or Jump to Derash?

[dauer]

I thought this would be an interesting thread to start, though unfortunately there aren't a heck of a lot of Jews on the forum, which will make for a less interesting discussion. I think it's a particularly salient question for liberal communities. Is it better to acknowledge and wrestle with the plain meaning, even if a person disagrees with it, or to skip over that and jump to more allegorical interpretations?

My personal feeling is that pshat should not be ignored and that it's better to openly disagree with the direction pshat is going than to ignore it and deal only at other levels of exegesis. I further think this is of greatest value when an ethical imperative is reached, but that the act of wrestling itself can be quite rewarding.

 

[wil]

I love your questions, they make me look up and read...

As I understand it your question is do we spend time with the straightforward simple understanding (Pshat) of the text or look for deeper meaning (Derash)?

In reading I found folks who insist that Pshat does not mean literal, yes?

My interpretation of both Jewish and Christian texts (all of which are really written by jews as well, yes?) is that we have many multiple interpretations from which to gain information. Historical, societal, literal, allegorical, metaphysical etc. As well as looking at the text in concert with my own life.

I think these are all valuable in and amongst themselves.

But must admit there are many times I struggle/wrestle with the literal...Lot offering up his daughters, slaying entire villages etc. without much in the way of reward...

 

[dauer]

Wil,

That's not quite my question. Judaism has maintained that the pshat (you are correct that this is plain and not literal) shouldn't be ignored, but that there are other levels going on as well. Some people have a habit of ignoring pshat and just focusing on those other levels. Others take pshat into account and will openly disagree with what the Torah is saying at that plain level.

So my question would then be, is it better to wrestle with the plain meaning (pshat) or go beyond that into remez, drash or sod while ignoring the plain meaning? My feeling is that it's better to deal with pshat, even if it is disagreeable, even if it discourages one from taking that part of the text at other levels. I think the pshat needs to be dealt with and sorted out before going deeper.

 

[wil]

So my question would then be, is it better to wrestle with the plain meaning (pshat) or go beyond that into remez, drash or sod while ignoring the plain meaning? My feeling is that it's better to deal with pshat, even if it is disagreeable, even if it discourages one from taking that part of the text at other levels. I think the pshat needs to be dealt with and sorted out before going deeper.

Even if it discourages one to go further....

What does that mean. That the pshat is enough? Or that if you can't reconcile then don't go on until you do?

This is what I was getting at with Lot offering up his daughters or the slaying of villages, every man, woman and daughter. I realize there may be a social/historical context or an attempt to indicate...it is G!d's will on the surface level. But I can reconcile neither from my vantage point of today's society. So I move on, it is in the deeper meaning I find solace.

I take it you are indicating I should spend more time with what is written?

 

[dauer]

Wil,

Not so much reconciliation, if I understand what you're saying, but closer to that. More, I don't think pshat should be avoided if a person experiences it as offensive. That very reaction is imo a very good opportunity to wrestle with the Divine. There are some people who may find some passages in the pshat very offensive and still be able to deal with them at different levels once they've taken the time to work through the pshat. There are other people who may not be able to do so. There are also those who will find the pshat offensive and so will avoid dealing with it directly. I don't think that's a good way to go. If it's offensive, why? And what can be learned from that?

I find the suggestion that Amalek should be hated and wiped out offensive. But this offense serves as an ethical motivation for me not to hate a whole people. In this way, even though the text is disagreeable to me, I have learned from it. There are other ways that I could look at this, from other levels, like saying that I can eliminate Amalek by loving my neighbor. However, in this case, because it refers back to a genocidal mitzvah, I don't feel it would be right to do that. I have other motivations for loving my neighbor. Then again, there are places where Amalek is interpreted extremely allegorically that don't bother me so much. However, I would not make those interpretations myself and would instead much more readily go to the pshat, wrestle with it, and find meaning there.

I take it you are indicating I should spend more time with what is written?

No, not at all. You should do what makes sense to you. I am only stating what makes sense to me.

-- Dauer

 

[wil]

I see your point. I've been much more of a move on type of guy. If I can't replace the word G1d with the word love, to me it is an indication that the deeper story is more powerful, that I am to look to the allegory and not the surface.

I don't think I can sit with the genocide without moving onto the allegorical, metaphysical, mystical. But also there is the concept of what you resist persists so if you don't get to the point of understanding, I suppose one would stay in the point of misunderstanding.

 

[dauer]

Wil,

But also there is the concept of what you resist persists so if you don't get to the point of understanding, I suppose one would stay in the point of misunderstanding.

I don't get what you're saying by this. Are you offering a counterpoint to your own idea, that by avoiding a direct engagement with genocidal passages you may not be reaching a point of understanding or saying that the only way to reach a point of understanding is to ignore the plain meaning of the genocidal passages?

-- Dauer

 

[wil]

Wil,



I don't get what you're saying by this. Are you offering a counterpoint to your own idea, that by avoiding a direct engagement with genocidal passages you may not be reaching a point of understanding or saying that the only way to reach a point of understanding is to ignore the plain meaning of the genocidal passages?

-- Dauer

the former, that I need to spend some more time with the passages that raise my ire, the ones I don't wish to read.

As that maybe those things I tend to sweep under the carpet are of import.

 

[dauer]

Repression leads to a strengthening of shadow?

 

[seattlegal]

Repression leads to a strengthening of shadow?

Quite possibly, yes, imo.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Repression leads to a strengthening of shadow?

There is more than one idea of what Shadow is. Some would contend that the Unconscious is what we don't talk about in polite society.

I think the avoidance of certain kinds of emotional content is not always something that involves repression. It's more like uncomfortable muscle tensions. In other words, the material is actually registering somatically rather than "out of mind, out of sight." We identify the material as stuff we want to avoid because it is literally physically uncomfortable.

If you like Reich, he'd probably say that repression leads to a strengthening of character armor - i.e., outward rigidity.

 

[Dream]

Let's say want to share an allegorical understanding with a community member but you don't know each other's pshat understanding of the base text. Suppose they're afraid to tell you what they really think about the pshat, and maybe you're afraid, too although you each have delt with it individually. Your views may be the same or different, but you don't know. Is it the end of the conversation? Also, have you really delt with the pshat?

 

[seattlegal]

Let's say want to share an allegorical understanding with a community member but you don't know each other's pshat understanding of the base text. Suppose they're afraid to tell you what they really think about the pshat, and maybe you're afraid, too although you each have delt with it individually. Your views may be the same or different, but you don't know. Is it the end of the conversation? Also, have you really delt with the pshat?

From dictionary.com

al·le·go·ry
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
2. a symbolical narrative: the allegory of Piers Plowman.
3. emblem (def. 3).


-------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME allegorie < L allégoria < Gk allégoría, deriv. of allégoreǐn to speak so as to imply something other. See allo-, agora; Gk agoreúein to speak, proclaim, orig. meant to act (e.g., speak) in the assembly]


—Synonyms 2. fable, parable.​

Well, since allegories are based upon material or concrete forms, it might be a good idea to have an understanding of the basic, concrete meaning of the text before you build your allegory. Otherwise, you are just building castles in the air, with no foundation, imo.

 

[bananabrain]

dauer,

of course, as you know, ein miqra yotzei mi-peshuto - no Torah may be alienated from its pshat (BT Shabbat 63a) but, obviously, what that actually means in practice is rather more open to debate. an interesting book by david weiss-halivni addresses the theory that what was meant by "peshat" altered completely in between the time of the ga'onim and that of the tosafot. DWH suggests that actually the peshat that was being talked about in talmudic times was far closer to drash, whereas in the mediaeval period it became far more about "plain meaning" due to aristotelian and scholastic influence, which is why the mediaeval authorities often seemed to be so restrictive when they were trying to be literal, which is an ongoing problem that seems to still be with us today.

the issue for me comes when one appears to deal with the plain meaning of the peshat by having recourse to the most wildly mythologised explanations in derash, such as, for example, the thing about how israelite women in egypt were able to give birth without pain. that sort of thing might have sounded OK as mediaeval drash supporting mediaeval peshat, but to a modern feels like we are being forced to concede that the mythologised explanation represents what *actually happened*, which is of course a tough gig to play.

however, i think if peshat is experienced as "offensive", then we need to have recourse to what the Torah is really trying to teach us. if, as i do, we start from the axiomatic position that G!D's Revelation has eternal validity, then commandments such as exterminating amalek must also have eternal validity. however, the *application* of the commandment must necessarily be applicable to the times, which is a principle that is accepted in orthodoxy as well as in the progressive denominations. from my point of view, it is inconceivable that "amalek" could be understood as condoning genocide - this would be an unpardonable misapplication of the text. in the words of the aharonim, "he who wishes to support this point of view has plenty on which to rely", in this case the talmudic assertion that sennacherib mixed up the nations so that one could no longer reliably identify an amalekite, with the logical concomitant that the only amalek that once could now exterminate would be a characteristic behaviour, rather than an ethnic group. chucking that entire pasuk is not an option, however - and it would also feel wrong because it would feel like we were whitewashing our sacred history. why not dump the entire book of joshua while you're at it. warts and all, mate, warts and all.

If I can't replace the word G1d with the word love, to me it is an indication that the deeper story is more powerful, that I am to look to the allegory and not the surface.

perhaps the story of love is itself only one of the surface layers of G!D.

Let's say want to share an allegorical understanding with a community member but you don't know each other's pshat understanding of the base text. Suppose they're afraid to tell you what they really think about the pshat, and maybe you're afraid, too although you each have delt with it individually. Your views may be the same or different, but you don't know. Is it the end of the conversation? Also, have you really delt with the pshat?

very interesting. it's only really the end of the conversation if you have a halakhic decision to make (and not always just then), but as for the difference in interpretation, as it says, "these and those are the words of the Living G!D". and in aggadic matters multifarious interpretations are entirely permitted.

Well, since allegories are based upon material or concrete forms, it might be a good idea to have an understanding of the basic, concrete meaning of the text before you build your allegory. Otherwise, you are just building castles in the air, with no foundation, imo.

which, lest we forget, one can sometimes accuse even our sages of doing!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

Dream,

BB's answer to your question pretty much covers my answer too. The diverse interpretations are okay. Besides, if we all interpreted it the same way, what would we have to talk about?


BB,

Is the book you're referring to called Peshat and Derash? You suggested it to me a while ago and I've had it on my wishlist for some time. The main thing that's kept me from purchasing it yet is the cost.

in this case the talmudic assertion that sennacherib mixed up the nations so that one could no longer reliably identify an amalekite, with the logical concomitant that the only amalek that once could now exterminate would be a characteristic behaviour, rather than an ethnic group.

See that's the thing. I would see read their response differently, similarly to the way in which I would read the way the mishna dances around the stoning of an unruly child. I see that as their attempt to get around a passage that, taken for what it actually is, would offend their sensibilities as people who lived in a very different time than the time in which the Torah was developed and eventually compiled in the form that we have it today. I am not so certain for them, however, that it was conscious. It may have been more that, if a passage seemed offensive when taken at face value, then it could not possibly be meant to be taken at face value. This difference in interpretation is probably largely based on our differences in perspective on the nature of revelation and Torah.

chucking that entire pasuk is not an option, however - and it would also feel wrong because it would feel like we were whitewashing our sacred history. why not dump the entire book of joshua while you're at it. warts and all, mate, warts and all.

That's the thing though. I'm not for chucking. I want the nasty passages there. And I can derive ethical imperative from them. But the ethical imperative for me comes not from some loose read of the passages themselves but instead from a head-to-head confrontation with the history contained in those passages. I think to do otherwise is a dishonor to Amalek and all of the other peoples that the ancient Israelites murdered and plundered, as was the way of the world in that time, a hypocrisy and a failure to learn from our people's mistakes. I was taking into account ein mikra yotzei mi-p'shuto in my own way. If I can come to terms with a difficult passage in terms of the history in which it finds itself, then I'm more likely to be able to go further than that with the text. If I don't take that step then I just can't feel right about any other interpretation.

-- Dauer

 

[dauer]

I've moved the discussion on psych books to here:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/books-on-psychology-9413.html#post157793

 

[bananabrain]

Is the book you're referring to called Peshat and Derash?

yup, that's it. it's an important insight that explains a great deal about the way the aharonim do peshat.

I would see read their response differently, similarly to the way in which I would read the way the mishna dances around the stoning of an unruly child.

it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.

It may have been more that, if a passage seemed offensive when taken at face value, then it could not possibly be meant to be taken at face value.

precisely. what is more, you may need to consider the issue of ezekiel 20:25:

I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

BAD COMMANDMENTS

But the ethical imperative for me comes not from some loose read of the passages themselves but instead from a head-to-head confrontation with the history contained in those passages. I think to do otherwise is a dishonor to Amalek and all of the other peoples that the ancient Israelites murdered and plundered, as was the way of the world in that time, a hypocrisy and a failure to learn from our people's mistakes.

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.

Their response is still the same though, to go to great lengths to make it impossible.

precisely

What I meant by that is that it may have been their perspective, but not reflective of what the text was historically saying, much in the same way that Rambam, rather than seeing an incongruity between Aristotle and Torah, saw that what rang true which was external to Torah would not conflict with it and, while differing with Aristotle at times, still read Aristotle into the Torah. I don't think that speaks to the Torah itself though, just the perspectives of those who interpret it.

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

I'll need you to clarify what Maccoby is getting at, is it that the above was meant as a paraphrase by Ezekiel of his opponents' position, his opponents seeing older laws and customs as G!d-given which Ezekiel does not see as G!d-given, a conflict on the authority of tradition vs the authority of an innovative spiritual insight? This passage

"This interpretation casts new light on Ezekiel's dispute with the Israelites. Rather than being merely disobedient to the commandments of Yahweh, these Israelites disapproved of the upstart prophetic interpreters, who, in the name of Yahweh, forbade a practice of ancient authority, the sacrifice of firstborn sons."

would seem to validate my statement that a belief in hating and annihilating Amalek should be challenged. I am wondering if, on some level, we are arguing along similar lines but from different perspectives? I support the attempts of the Talmud to soften matters that were offensive to them or turn them upside down and, I think it's something that should be continued today. I don't, however, think that this means the more likely historical meaning, taken in the context of the time and place in which the Torah came to be, should be ignored. I think it is better to wrestle with that meaning.

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

And while I think that interpretation can be healthy, I don't think it's the intent of the text. I see Torah as an historical document which becomes a sacred text through the collective consensus of the Jewish community and as such, that the history in which the text arises should be taken into account in understanding its original meaning. I am not opposed to an evolution of ideas which is able to see Amalek as referring to a particular set of behaviors but I don't think, if it is referring to that, that it is referring only to that. You brought up the book of Joshua in your last post. That is another example of violent warfare in the ancient world. The Tanach is filled with a lot of similar examples during a time when this was the way of the world. If you see the meaning of Torah as, by its very nature, speaking to all generations and all times, then I can understand you would avoid the suggestion that Torah speaks to the actual annihilation of Amalek as a form of genocide. I see the Torah as speaking to all generations and all times because each generation is able to read itself into Torah and find new insight in it, that it is an act of co-creation which takes a finite text of very limited meaning and applies to it many meanings. I see it concurrently as a finite text that had an original and limited meaning which was the intent of the authors of the text. But I also think there was most likely an evolution in meaning before the Torah took the form that we have it today, as a matter of passing through different hands and voices over generations.

-- Dauer

 

[seattlegal]

yup, that's it. it's an important insight that explains a great deal about the way the aharonim do peshat.


it's a *challenge*, as you are well aware. "there never was a 'rebellious son'" (unruly child is an unnecessarily emotive reading of the text, btw, the b.s.u-m would have to be an adult to receive capital punishment!) i can't see why you would have trouble accepting that they were conscious of the nuances. this comes actually from studying gemara; the level of nuance that these guys were aware of was subtle to the nth degree. knowing something about the analytical capabilities of the sages, i would have difficulty reconciling this with the evidence.


precisely. what is more, you may need to consider the issue of ezekiel 20:25:

I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live

it seems to me that this was G!D's challenge to our humanity and one, unfortunately, which we were constantly unequal to. it is discussed rather well here by hyam maccoby:

BAD COMMANDMENTS

But the ethical imperative for me comes not from some loose read of the passages themselves but instead from a head-to-head confrontation with the history contained in those passages. I think to do otherwise is a dishonor to Amalek and all of the other peoples that the ancient Israelites murdered and plundered, as was the way of the world in that time, a hypocrisy and a failure to learn from our people's mistakes.

but you're assuming that there *is* history contained in those passages. it may actually be prophecy, which should be read in a different way: "thou shalt" can be both rueful prediction and command. moreover, if one understands amalek and the seven nations to be ideal halakhic constructs rather than actual tribes, perhaps G!D's challenge to us was to "eliminate amalek and the seven nations" by destroying their idolatrous cultures and behaviour, not by killing their physical bodies. we misunderstood and went, as usual, for the obvious, physical and measurable. it was a test we failed - because, obviously, eliminating bad behaviours requires a different approach.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I can't pretend to understand the Jewish methods of interpretation. My impression, for what it might be worth, in that by killing the people and not the practices, their consciences became seared and vulnerable to evil practices. In this depraved/vulnerable state, they themselves became fascinated with these idolatrous practices, and started doing it themselves, to their own destruction.

{Does that make sense?}

 

[Dream]

Sounds like Maccoby has a bomb that could take all the interested parties out of the game in a single instant! This is the day I learned the meaning of the term 'Peshat'.